Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Ramos et al v. Nielsen et al

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

3:18-cv-01554

Court:

California Northern

Nature of Suit:

Civil Rights: Other

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action

Judge:

Edward M Chen

Firms

Government Agencies

  1. July 19, 2024

    Feds Deny That Advocate Suit Forced Immigration Change

    The Biden administration rebuked immigration advocates' request for $3.7 million for challenging Trump-era orders ending immigration protections for people from conflict zones, arguing they couldn't claim they won the case just because the new administration undid its predecessor's policy.

  2. May 28, 2024

    Immigration Programs' Survival Justifies $3.7M Fee, Attys Say

    The attorneys who challenged Trump-era orders ending immigration protections for people from countries in crisis are seeking a $3.7 million fee award, telling a California federal judge that the Biden administration's rescission of the orders showed their lawsuit was successful.

  3. January 02, 2024

    Trump-Era Suit Over Immigration Protections Declared Moot

    A California federal judge has dismissed a long-running challenge by temporary protected status holders to Trump-era orders terminating the immigration protections for individuals from several countries, ruling that the suit is moot since the Biden administration reversed course in June.

  4. December 14, 2023

    Protected Status Holders Say Trump Comments Justify Suit

    Holders of Temporary Protected Status visas have pushed back against the Biden administration's assertion that their suit challenging Trump-era orders terminating their protections was mooted by new protections, saying recent Trump campaign statements indicate that if reelected, he will end the program.

  5. September 15, 2023

    Biden Admin. Says Temporary Protected Status Suit Is Moot

    The Biden administration asked a California federal court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Trump-era orders that terminated temporary immigration protections for six countries, saying plaintiffs were no longer vulnerable to the terminations since the administration had already rescinded them.

  6. August 25, 2023

    Temporary Protected Status Holders Renew Court Battle

    Visa holders fighting Trump-era orders that ended their protections against being sent back to countries in crisis have told a California federal judge that the Biden administration's reversal of the policy did nothing to resolve their case's legal questions.

  7. September 25, 2018

    Trump's Bid To End Immigrant Protections Illegal, Judge Told

    A putative class of immigrant families asked a California federal judge Tuesday to force the government to preserve the temporary protected status for more than 200,000 individuals, saying the Trump administration's about-face in determining how that status was determined was unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

  8. September 07, 2018

    No 'New Rule' Was Used To End Immigrants' TPS, Feds Say

    The government is fighting back against a bid by a group of immigrant families to preserve temporary protected status for more than 200,000 immigrants living in the U.S., arguing in a Thursday response brief before a California federal court that the proposed class is unlikely to win on their claims that the terminations violated their constitutional rights.

  9. June 26, 2018

    Gov't Can't Dodge Due Process Challenge From TPS Holders

    A California federal judge said Monday he will allow a group of immigrant families to move forward with claims that the Trump administration violated their constitutional rights when it terminated temporary protected status for more than 200,000 immigrants living in the U.S.

  10. June 22, 2018

    Gov't Seeks To Nix Immigrants' Protected Status Class Action

    The Trump administration did not create a new rule by ending temporary protected status for immigrants whose home countries are in crisis, the U.S. Department of Justice told a California federal judge Friday, arguing that meant the reversal couldn't come under judicial review and a putative class action challenging the decision should be nixed.